AGRICULTURE EQUIPMENT CO. Vs. CC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant imported certain goods; filed Bill of Entry No. 993937 dated 12.12.1996. Those goods were covered by Invoice No. AEC/Ind/96 -31 dated 9.12.1996 issued by Asia Cycle Trading, Singapore. The price of the goods covered by the invoice was shown as 2940 Singapore Dollars. On the basis of that invoice the importer submitted a declaration under Rule 10 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. The goods were examined by the Departmental Officials on 31.1.1997. They found that the market value of the goods imported was much more than the value declared. Even before the examination of the goods by the Customs Authorities, the importer, namely the appellant herein, by letter dated 20.1.1997 accepted the proposal of the Department to load the value and imposition of penalties by adjudication of the case, without issue of show cause notice.

(2.) AT page 3 of the impugned order, the declared assessable value and the maximum market value of each of the goods imported is given. ______________________________________________________________________________________ Sl. No. Description the goods Declared as - Minimum sessable value Market Value (per Unit) ______________________________________________________________________________________

(3.) THE above valuation was resorted to by the Department under the following circumstances. The Bill of Entry was assessed on the basis of declaration made by the appellant. Thereupon the special intelligence and investigation branch took up the case for investigation of the correct value of the goods. It was at that stage appellant submitted his letter dated 20.1.1997. The appellant has no case that the assessable value arrived at by the Department of the various items of goods imported is not comparable with similar items of goods at the time of import. No successful attempt is also made to show that the value fixed in the impugned order is not correct value. Consequently, we hold that the total assessable value of the goods imported is correctly fixed as Rs. 3,03,543. The duty on that amount comes to Rs. 1,61,318.68. Appellant had paid a sum of Rs. 43,534.80 towards duty, so that the amount that was sought to be evaded is Rs. 1,17,783.68. This part of the finding calls for no interference. In a case, where the duty that was sought to be evaded comes to Rs. 1,17,783, the imposition of redemption fine of Rs. 1 Lakh on the importer cannot be stated to be too excessive. This is more particularly so when it is seen that the appellant showed lesser value and goods were wrongly described. We do not find any ground to interfere with the redemption fine of Rs. 1 Lakh imposed on the appellant.